Eye on Iran: Iran Is Being Too Stubborn in Nuclear Talks, Experts Say

Join UANI           Top Stories Roll Call: "The consensus of a panel at the Brookings Institution Tuesday: The reason Iran nuclear talks have been extended is because Tehran is being overly rigid in the face of a very generous offer from the United States and its negotiating partners. 'The failure to reach an agreement over the weekend was entirely Iran's fault,' said Gary Samore, executive director of research at Harvard University's Belfer Center. 'The Iranians, as far as I can tell, have continued to take unrealistic and extreme positions.' For instance, the offer from the P5+1 team of countries negotiating with Iran would allow limited enrichment capability that builds up over time, Samore said, and phased out sanctions. Instead, Iran wants a rapid build-up with immediate and total sanctions relief, he said. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't feel much pressure to make concessions, Samore said, reasoning that the interim agreement that traded off some limitations on Iran's nuclear program for some sanctions relief has helped stabilize the economy in conjunction with the economic policies of President Hassan Rouhani. He also figures that the West's struggles with ISIS and Russia have given Iran a stronger bargaining position. David Albright, president of the  Institute for Science and International Security, agreed. 'Iran is not making concessions,' he said. Added Robert Einhorn, a Brookings senior fellow and former Secretary of State special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control during the Obama administration: 'Iran has taken a rigid position, an unrealistic position.'" http://t.uani.com/1ybGvVy Reuters: "A stalled U.N. watchdog investigation into allegations Iran conducted atomic bomb research looks unlikely to be revived by the decision to extend wider nuclear talks, diplomats and experts say... Western diplomats who accuse Iran of stonewalling the IAEA say full cooperation with the U.N. agency should be a condition for sanctions relief under the broader nuclear deal. But when talks between Iran and six world powers were extended on Monday, there was no indication that there was any new requirement for Iran to engage with the IAEA before a possible comprehensive settlement is reached. 'Can Iran now stall with impunity until July 1, 2015?' asked one Western diplomat, referring to the talks' new deadline." http://t.uani.com/11uG0dM Times of Israel: "More than two-thirds of Americans oppose a deal with Iran that would allow it to maintain nuclear weapons capabilities, according to a new survey by American political strategist Frank Luntz. Americans are also overwhelmingly mistrustful of Iran, and consider it to be the country that poses the greatest threat to the United States. The survey, shown to The Times of Israel on Tuesday, the day after US-led talks with Iran were extended till next July, also found an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Iranians are stalling rather than negotiating in good faith, and that the regime in Tehran cannot be relied upon to honor any accord it may reach... A staggering 81% of respondents do not believe the current government in Iran can be trusted to keep agreements, compared to 5% who think it can be trusted. And an even more overwhelming 85% do not believe the Iranians' assertions that their nuclear program is peaceful, as compared to 8% who do." http://t.uani.com/11uHjJt     Nuclear Program & Negotiations WSJ: "Officials also said there would be curbs during the extension period on Iran's ability to pursue research and development that improves its enrichment program. In particular, Western officials said Iran would give United Nations inspectors access to additional workshops linked to the production of centrifuges and their rotors.  Centrifuges are sophisticated machines used to enrich uranium to higher levels of purity.  The access will give the West more insight into whether Iran is able to produce more advanced centrifuges capable of more quickly producing enriched uranium. The move could help ease one of the Western concerns about extending the talks-an interim accord reached last year sets few limits on Tehran's nuclear research. In addition, Iran has agreed not to move to the next stage of testing for its advanced centrifuges, meaning it wouldn't be able to use the extra time for a significant breakthrough in the technology... 'The key issue remains the breakout time,' said a senior Western diplomat. 'We are working on all kinds of technical solutions to address this.'" http://t.uani.com/1yXeRv3 Times of Israel: "Iran's unwillingness to move on its positions during recent rounds of nuclear negotiations indicates Tehran's negotiators may be incapable of sealing a comprehensive agreement, veteran US diplomat Dennis Ross said Tuesday. A day after nuclear talks with Iran were extended until July 2015 after the sides failed to come together following a year of intensive negotiations, Ross said that the US had demonstrated flexibility during the talks, including a willingness to back down on demands over the Arak heavy water facility and the Fordo enrichment facility, but that its positions were received by intransigence by the Iranian counterparts... The former diplomat said that Iranian negotiators were either unwilling or incapable of budging from a series of red lines. Iran, Ross said, would not roll back centrifuge programs for uranium enrichment to the levels that the P5+1 members hoped, and 'would not budge on the demands that sanctions be removed immediately' upon the achievement of a comprehensive agreement. However, he said current Secretary of State John Kerry's upcoming Congressional briefing on the talks would have to convince legislators that progress had been made, and that there was a reasonable chance of reaching an acceptable agreement by the end of the seven-month extension." http://t.uani.com/1FqGvUX NYT: "When the United States agreed on Monday to extend the nuclear negotiations with Iran for another seven months, it was met with immediate protest from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, as well as from hard-liners in Iran's Parliament. But it also raised alarms with another group that has a long, anguished history with Iran: the Americans held captive in the United States Embassy in Tehran for 444 days, from 1979 to 1981. As part of the extension, Iran will continue to receive $700 million a month in funds that were frozen under Western sanctions. That is money the surviving hostages, and their families, believe could be used as a financial settlement for their captivity - a period in which they were interrogated, beaten and subjected to mock executions. The former hostages - 39 of the original 52 are still alive - have waged a fruitless campaign for restitution because of a diplomatic agreement that President Jimmy Carter signed to obtain their release, which granted Iran immunity from legal claims in the United States, in addition to freeing up nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets." http://t.uani.com/1FqCaBb Sanctions Relief AFP: "Saeed Leylaz, one of Iran's top economists, said the $700 million per month Iran will receive in sanctions relief was a good result, equivalent to a daily increase of 300,000 barrels of oil. 'Increasing exports by that amount -- about 30 percent on present levels -- would be very difficult under any other circumstances,' he said." http://t.uani.com/1tj9JO8 Reuters: "South Korea has transferred $500 million (318 million pounds) to Iran to pay for crude oil imports under an interim nuclear deal that provides limited relief from sanctions, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter said... Including the latest payment, South Korea has paid $1.05 billion to Tehran so far this year." http://t.uani.com/15xv69e Human Rights RFE/RL: "Iranian opposition websites are reporting that an appeal court in Iran has confirmed the death sentence for an Internet activist who allegedly insulted Prophet Muhammad. Soheil Arabi was reportedly arrested last year by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps over his posts on Facebook, where he is said to have been active under different names. Arabi's wife, Nastaran Naeimi, has said that printouts of Arabi's alleged Facebook posts are the only proof that authorities have provided against him." http://t.uani.com/1yX8zf0 Domestic Politics NYT: "A year ago Iranians danced in the streets after they elected President Hassan Rouhani, mainly because he promised to get devastating sanctions lifted by starting negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. On Monday, hours after a deadline for those talks set 12 months ago had been extended by 7 months without any clear result, Iranian state television played a prerecorded interview with the president, but Mehdi Mohammadi, a philosophy student who voted for Mr. Rouhani, did not bother to watch. He 'could already guess,' he said, what the president would say. 'The negotiations are the only way, everything has gotten better and the country will become even more glorious in the future. But I no longer believe him,' said Mr. Mohammadi, who is thinking of leaving Iran. In the background, Mr. Rouhani promised victory in the nuclear talks and a bright future for the Iranian nation. As Mr. Mohammadi's reaction underscored, the enthusiasm for such promises is growing thinner and thinner, many of his supporters and analysts say, especially since Mr. Rouhani has in the eyes of many failed to deliver on other promises of more freedoms and improving the economy. He has instead doubled down on making a nuclear deal, which puts him in a politically dangerous position." http://t.uani.com/1tti9BC Opinion & Analysis UANI President Gary Samore in Harvard's Iran Matters: "Failure to reach agreement on a comprehensive nuclear deal within the time frame set by the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) is Iran's fault. The P5+1 (lead by the U.S.) offered Iran an extremely reasonable - even generous - face-saving proposal that would allow Iran to pursue its peaceful nuclear power program with a limited enrichment capacity and defer coming to terms with the IAEA on its past nuclear weapons program in exchange for graduated sanctions relief.   Iran, however, continues to take extreme and inflexible positions.  It refuses to reduce its existing centrifuge force of nearly 10,000 operational centrifuges, insists on rapid expansion to industrial scale enrichment and demands immediate and total removal of all sanctions. Why is Iran acting this way? One possibility is sharp bargaining tactics. Supreme Leader Khamenei may hope to squeeze more concessions out of the P5+1 before offering any Iranian compromises on the eve of the new deadline in June. Another possibility is that Supreme Leader Khamenei does not feel compelled by current conditions to give up Iran's long standing program to develop a nuclear weapons option.  Under the JPA, Iran's economic deterioration has stabilized.  Moreover, recent geopolitical developments, such as the Ukraine crisis and rise of Islamic State may give Supreme Leader Khameini more confidence that Iran's bargaining leverage has improved and that Iran can weather the collapse of the JPA. Whatever Iran's motivations, we will be in exactly the same spot we are today in seven months, unless Iran begins to show some realistic flexibility.   The P5+1 should not make any new offers until Iran reciprocates with a serious proposal of its own.  More important, the U.S. and its allies need to begin preparing for a resumption of the sanctions campaign in July if there is no comprehensive agreement or enough progress to justify another extension.  This means persuading Iran's major oil customers such as Japan, Korea, and India, to plan for reducing their purchases of Iranian oil after July and persuading other oil producers like Saudi and the Emirates to maintain high production to fill the gap.  Congress can also play a key role by passing legislation that authorizes President Obama to impose draconian new sanctions in the event that Iran reneges on the JPA or fails to allow progress towards a comprehensive deal. Will these actions be enough to persuade Iran to come to terms along the lines proposed by the P5+1?  Probably not, but it represents the best chance available and puts us in the strongest possible position to increase sanctions if the JPA collapses in July." http://t.uani.com/11uGKzx José María Aznar in WSJ: "Just about every Western leader is consistently on record regarding Iran's nuclear program, saying: 'No deal is better than a bad deal.' Unfortunately rhetoric does not match reality. We have learned about secret letters begging Iran for a compromise; we know about the business appetite to normalize relations with the regime of the ayatollahs; and we can sense the psychological urge for politicians to check off Iran as a problem solved. Still, a bad deal is a bad deal. The Nov. 24 deadline for a deal expired with neither a significant change in Iranian demands nor a more cooperative attitude from Tehran. Despite this, Western countries led by the U.S. administration have extended the talks to next summer. In our willingness to play Iran's game, I believe that we are marching toward signing a very bad deal. When Iran's clandestine nuclear efforts and their possible military application were discovered more than a decade ago, the international community called-through several United Nations resolutions-for a total dismantling of Iran's uranium-enrichment capabilities. In the past year and a half, that goal was abandoned by Western negotiators, and Iran was granted the right to enrich. So now the nuclear talks are about what level of enrichment will be allowed and about how many centrifuges Iran can keep spinning. Those technicalities should not blind us to a basic truth: Iran will be, after any further concessions in this area, a virtual nuclear power. It will be able to produce low-enriched uranium and will have the infrastructure to move to military-grade enrichment whenever the Iranian leadership so chooses. When the first negotiations started 10 years ago, Iran had no operational capability to make a bomb. Now Iran has all the knowledge, components and infrastructure to produce fissile material and test delivery systems, and it has the know-how to master weaponization. In trying too hard to get the nuclear issue off the table so that relations with Iran can be normalized and the country can be reintegrated into international circles, we are putting the cart before the horse. This is a dramatic change since Iran's 1979 revolution, when the Islamic Republic was designated a state sponsor of terrorism and considered to be a revolutionary power intent on transforming the world order. Obviously, everyone would love to have a 'normal' Iran, respecting international norms and behaving cooperatively with other nations. But the reality is that Iran remains the Islamic Republic, with all the ambitions of a hegemonic regional power. Its human-rights record, with one execution every seven hours, is deplorable. Its ties to groups like the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, to whom Iran supplies weapons, money and advisers, are stronger than ever. And its support of bloody regimes, like the one in Syria, or sectarian governments, like Iraq's, has produced more instability and problems than solutions. The Islamic Republic is now present and influential in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, having paid little price for its expansion of power. On the contrary, the ayatollahs have retained what they wanted most: uranium-enrichment capabilities. Iranian President Hasan Rouhani may present a smiling face and even be genuinely interested in some reforms, but the real power of Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is personally committed to the vision advanced three decades ago by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini : a Persian, Shiite, revolutionary, theocratic (and ruthless) government. Thinking that major concessions from the West will strengthen so-called moderate Iranians is as much wishful thinking today as it was years ago. Mr. Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard would be the ones empowered from a nuclear agreement; the Iranian people would remain under the oppressive regime for years to come. That is not a moral proposition easy to swallow for any democrat." http://t.uani.com/1vlAhCI      Eye on Iran is a periodic news summary from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Eye on Iran is not intended as a comprehensive media clips summary but rather a selection of media elements with discreet analysis in a PDA friendly format. For more information please email Press@UnitedAgainstNuclearIran.com United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.  UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.